Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #603266 > unrolled thread

Ion drive for aircraft imminent.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-01 11:09 -0400
    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-01 08:51 -0700
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-01 14:27 -0400
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-01 22:01 -0400
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-03 09:16 -0400
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-03 08:33 -0700
          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-04 07:29 -0400
            Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-04 07:35 -0400
              Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 12:20 -0700
                Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-06 12:23 -0500
                  Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-11-06 16:28 -0500
                  Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 19:13 -0700
          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 11:52 -0700
    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 10:16 -0700
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-01 18:16 +0000
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-01 18:44 -0400
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-02 22:31 -0500
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-03 07:27 -0500
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-11-03 09:26 -0400
          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-03 12:04 -0500
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 18:03 -0700
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-04 15:28 -0400
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-04 21:03 +0000
    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-01 18:19 +0000
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-01 14:13 -0700
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-02 00:00 +0000
          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-01 22:05 -0400
            Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-02 02:54 +0000
              Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-02 20:20 -0400
                Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2016-11-03 02:24 +0100
                Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-03 02:02 +0000
                Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2016-11-03 07:41 -0400
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-01 19:10 -0500
          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-01 22:06 -0400
          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-11-01 19:12 -0700
          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-02 02:57 +0000
    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 14:24 -0700
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-03 10:35 -0400
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-03 17:39 +0000
          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-06 13:12 -0500
            Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-06 19:54 +0000
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 11:37 -0700
    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-01 19:08 -0500
    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2016-11-02 00:33 -0800
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-11-03 01:05 -0700
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-03 17:43 +0000
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-04 15:38 -0400
    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Bill Martin <wwm@wwmartin.net> - 2016-11-02 11:47 -0700
    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-03 09:28 -0400
    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-03 09:48 -0400
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-03 08:41 -0700
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-03 12:22 -0500
          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-04 16:09 -0400
            Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-04 21:09 +0000
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-07 07:29 -0500
          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-07 18:37 +0000
            Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2016-11-07 15:31 -0500
              Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-07 21:46 +0000
                Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-11-07 18:18 -0800
                  Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-08 03:39 +0000
                    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-11-07 20:51 -0800
                      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-08 07:13 +0000
                        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-08 12:28 -0500
                        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-11-08 13:33 -0800
                          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-08 22:05 +0000
                            Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-08 18:45 -0500
                              Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-09 00:13 +0000
                                Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-08 19:46 -0500
                                  Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-09 01:05 +0000
                            Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> - 2016-11-09 18:26 +0000
                              Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-09 20:03 +0000
                        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 19:21 -0700
                          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 08:40 +0000
                            Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 02:55 -0700
                              Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-11-14 06:02 -0500
                                Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 11:31 +0000
                                  Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 05:54 -0700
                                    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 13:47 +0000
                                      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 12:35 -0700
                                        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-15 00:04 +0000
                                  Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-11-14 13:37 -0500
                                    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 18:52 +0000
                                      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-11-14 14:56 -0500
                                        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 13:17 -0700
                                    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-14 12:53 -0600
                                      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 19:19 +0000
                                    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 18:57 +0000
                              Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 11:27 +0000
                                Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 05:52 -0700
                                  Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 13:56 +0000
                                    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 12:47 -0700
                                      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 23:58 +0000
                                        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 22:07 -0700
                                          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2016-11-15 20:34 -0500
                                            Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 21:42 -0700
                                              Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-16 09:05 +0000
                                                Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 02:13 -0700
                                                Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-16 20:32 -0500
                      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 16:37 -0800
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-03 17:49 +0000
    Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-03 10:00 -0400
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-03 17:51 +0000
      Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-06 16:37 -0600
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2016-11-07 02:28 +0100
        Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-08 11:03 -0500
          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-08 11:17 -0600
            Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-08 17:53 +0000
            Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-13 12:09 -0500
              Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-13 12:04 -0600
                Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-13 20:34 -0500
                  Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-13 20:12 -0600
          Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-08 17:37 +0000
            Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-13 10:53 -0500
              Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-13 12:09 -0600

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

#604076

On 11/7/2016 7:39 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
>> On 11/7/2016 1:46 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/07/2016 01:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you know of a means to provide 50,000 V at *lightweight* then you will
>>>>>> have solved the problem of an independently flying lifter, using the
>>>>>> macrosized wires currently used. You would need about a power to weight
>>>>>> ratio for the power source of better than 1 watt per gram, while being able
>>>>>> to provide these ca. 50,000 V voltages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Bob Clark
>>>>>
>>>>> Trivial; look at any camera flash unit built in the last several decades.
>>>>>
>>>>> However you have totally missed the point; voltage and the weight of the
>>>>> converter is irrelevant as it is the total power that determines the
>>>>> weight of it all.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, here are some real world power to weight ratios:
>>>>>
>>>>> Boeing 777 engine 10 kW/kg
>>>>    1985 Chevy Celebrity 300 W/kg <-- So for a 1000 kg car, that's 402
>>>> horsepower?  Sign me up! ;)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Phil Hobbs
>>>
>>> No, that is the power to weight ratio of the engine, not the power to
>>> weight ratio of the car.
>>>
>>>
>> Power is a red herring.  What's important is the total energy produced
>> by the
>> engine AND the fuel supply.
>> It doesn't get the least bit interesting until the engine can lift
>> itself and a FULL tank of whatever powers it AND the vehicle AND the
>> payload to reach the destination.
>> I can't imagine that ever happening 1000 feet off the ground on this ole
>> earth at a cost anywhere near the cost of other forms of transportation.
>
> Are you trying to say airplanes aren't going to make it in the commercial
> world?
>
>
Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying: "Airplanes with ion drive are not 
going to make it in the commercial world."  Whatever technology can make
that work will be FAR less costly applied to something that rolls along 
the roadway.

But that misses the point that it's ENERGY that's the concern.  Doesn't
matter how light or powerful the airplane engine is if it still can't lift
enough fuel to reach the destination.  It takes a given amount of energy
to get from here to there.  Changing the engine only affects the efficiency
of the process that converts the available fuel source to whatever it takes
to motivate the vehicle.  Maybe we'll see terrestrial ion engines, but 
the efficiency
improvement won't be huge.

If we had an electric fuel source of sufficient energy/weight ratio,
we'd already have electric airplanes.

If you're gonna spend millions of dollars to fling an object into
space at escape velocity, it makes sense to have a nuclear power
source that applies tiny thrust for a long time using minimal reaction
mass to continue the flight to places unknown.
For a terrestrial flight to New York, not so much.

So, what am I missing?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604098

In sci.physics mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
> On 11/7/2016 7:39 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/7/2016 1:46 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> In sci.physics Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/07/2016 01:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you know of a means to provide 50,000 V at *lightweight* then you will
>>>>>>> have solved the problem of an independently flying lifter, using the
>>>>>>> macrosized wires currently used. You would need about a power to weight
>>>>>>> ratio for the power source of better than 1 watt per gram, while being able
>>>>>>> to provide these ca. 50,000 V voltages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    Bob Clark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Trivial; look at any camera flash unit built in the last several decades.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However you have totally missed the point; voltage and the weight of the
>>>>>> converter is irrelevant as it is the total power that determines the
>>>>>> weight of it all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, here are some real world power to weight ratios:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Boeing 777 engine 10 kW/kg
>>>>>    1985 Chevy Celebrity 300 W/kg <-- So for a 1000 kg car, that's 402
>>>>> horsepower?  Sign me up! ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil Hobbs
>>>>
>>>> No, that is the power to weight ratio of the engine, not the power to
>>>> weight ratio of the car.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Power is a red herring.  What's important is the total energy produced
>>> by the
>>> engine AND the fuel supply.
>>> It doesn't get the least bit interesting until the engine can lift
>>> itself and a FULL tank of whatever powers it AND the vehicle AND the
>>> payload to reach the destination.
>>> I can't imagine that ever happening 1000 feet off the ground on this ole
>>> earth at a cost anywhere near the cost of other forms of transportation.
>>
>> Are you trying to say airplanes aren't going to make it in the commercial
>> world?
>>
>>
> Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying: "Airplanes with ion drive are not 
> going to make it in the commercial world."  Whatever technology can make
> that work will be FAR less costly applied to something that rolls along 
> the roadway.

I doubt there is any technology that could ever make it work in an
atmosphere.
 
> But that misses the point that it's ENERGY that's the concern.  Doesn't
> matter how light or powerful the airplane engine is if it still can't lift
> enough fuel to reach the destination.  It takes a given amount of energy
> to get from here to there.  Changing the engine only affects the efficiency
> of the process that converts the available fuel source to whatever it takes
> to motivate the vehicle.  Maybe we'll see terrestrial ion engines, but 
> the efficiency
> improvement won't be huge.

Aircraft engines don't lift anything.

> If we had an electric fuel source of sufficient energy/weight ratio,
> we'd already have electric airplanes.
> 
> If you're gonna spend millions of dollars to fling an object into
> space at escape velocity, it makes sense to have a nuclear power
> source that applies tiny thrust for a long time using minimal reaction
> mass to continue the flight to places unknown.
> For a terrestrial flight to New York, not so much.
> 
> So, what am I missing?

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604126

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 07:13:09 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
>> On 11/7/2016 7:39 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/7/2016 1:46 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> In sci.physics Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/07/2016 01:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>> In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you know of a means to provide 50,000 V at *lightweight* then you will
>>>>>>>> have solved the problem of an independently flying lifter, using the
>>>>>>>> macrosized wires currently used. You would need about a power to weight
>>>>>>>> ratio for the power source of better than 1 watt per gram, while being able
>>>>>>>> to provide these ca. 50,000 V voltages.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Bob Clark
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Trivial; look at any camera flash unit built in the last several decades.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However you have totally missed the point; voltage and the weight of the
>>>>>>> converter is irrelevant as it is the total power that determines the
>>>>>>> weight of it all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, here are some real world power to weight ratios:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Boeing 777 engine 10 kW/kg
>>>>>>    1985 Chevy Celebrity 300 W/kg <-- So for a 1000 kg car, that's 402
>>>>>> horsepower?  Sign me up! ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil Hobbs
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that is the power to weight ratio of the engine, not the power to
>>>>> weight ratio of the car.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Power is a red herring.  What's important is the total energy produced
>>>> by the
>>>> engine AND the fuel supply.
>>>> It doesn't get the least bit interesting until the engine can lift
>>>> itself and a FULL tank of whatever powers it AND the vehicle AND the
>>>> payload to reach the destination.
>>>> I can't imagine that ever happening 1000 feet off the ground on this ole
>>>> earth at a cost anywhere near the cost of other forms of transportation.
>>>
>>> Are you trying to say airplanes aren't going to make it in the commercial
>>> world?
>>>
>>>
>> Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying: "Airplanes with ion drive are not 
>> going to make it in the commercial world."  Whatever technology can make
>> that work will be FAR less costly applied to something that rolls along 
>> the roadway.
>
>I doubt there is any technology that could ever make it work in an
>atmosphere.
> 
>> But that misses the point that it's ENERGY that's the concern.  Doesn't
>> matter how light or powerful the airplane engine is if it still can't lift
>> enough fuel to reach the destination.  It takes a given amount of energy
>> to get from here to there.  Changing the engine only affects the efficiency
>> of the process that converts the available fuel source to whatever it takes
>> to motivate the vehicle.  Maybe we'll see terrestrial ion engines, but 
>> the efficiency
>> improvement won't be huge.
>
>Aircraft engines don't lift anything.

Harriers aren't aircraft?  Well, they do look a little like bricks.
;-)
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604179

On 11/7/2016 11:13 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>
> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>

OK, how about, "Aircraft engines,
when properly fixtured,
can result in objects disengaging contact with the earth?"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604184

In sci.physics mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
> On 11/7/2016 11:13 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>
>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>
> 
> OK, how about, "Aircraft engines,
> when properly fixtured,
> can result in objects disengaging contact with the earth?"

How about the engine on fixed wing aircraft provides thrust to overcome
total drag to accelerate the aircraft to an airspeed sufficient to
provide enough lift from the wings to overcome the force of gravity?

How about the engine of a helicopter provides power to spin rotating
wings to a speed sufficient to develop enough lift to overcome the
force of gravity? For the purpose of this discussion assume that the
angle of attack of the rotor blades has been set appropriately.

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604200

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 22:05:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
>> On 11/7/2016 11:13 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> 
>>>
>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>>
>> 
>> OK, how about, "Aircraft engines,
>> when properly fixtured,
>> can result in objects disengaging contact with the earth?"
>
>How about the engine on fixed wing aircraft provides thrust to overcome
>total drag to accelerate the aircraft to an airspeed sufficient to
>provide enough lift from the wings to overcome the force of gravity?
>
>How about the engine of a helicopter provides power to spin rotating
>wings to a speed sufficient to develop enough lift to overcome the
>force of gravity? For the purpose of this discussion assume that the
>angle of attack of the rotor blades has been set appropriately.
>
There is more than one aircraft with a thrust to weight ratio greater
than unity, not to mention a rocket or two.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604212

In sci.physics krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 22:05:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>In sci.physics mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/7/2016 11:13 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> 
>>>>
>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>>>
>>> 
>>> OK, how about, "Aircraft engines,
>>> when properly fixtured,
>>> can result in objects disengaging contact with the earth?"
>>
>>How about the engine on fixed wing aircraft provides thrust to overcome
>>total drag to accelerate the aircraft to an airspeed sufficient to
>>provide enough lift from the wings to overcome the force of gravity?
>>
>>How about the engine of a helicopter provides power to spin rotating
>>wings to a speed sufficient to develop enough lift to overcome the
>>force of gravity? For the purpose of this discussion assume that the
>>angle of attack of the rotor blades has been set appropriately.
>>
> There is more than one aircraft with a thrust to weight ratio greater
> than unity, not to mention a rocket or two.

Yes, there certainly are but they are niche aircraft in the overall
scheme of things and an extremely small percentage of aircraft.

Maybe you'd like to include ornithopters in the discussion of engines
for flying machines.

Rockets are rockets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft



-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604219

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 00:13:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 22:05:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> 
>>>In sci.physics mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/7/2016 11:13 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> OK, how about, "Aircraft engines,
>>>> when properly fixtured,
>>>> can result in objects disengaging contact with the earth?"
>>>
>>>How about the engine on fixed wing aircraft provides thrust to overcome
>>>total drag to accelerate the aircraft to an airspeed sufficient to
>>>provide enough lift from the wings to overcome the force of gravity?
>>>
>>>How about the engine of a helicopter provides power to spin rotating
>>>wings to a speed sufficient to develop enough lift to overcome the
>>>force of gravity? For the purpose of this discussion assume that the
>>>angle of attack of the rotor blades has been set appropriately.
>>>
>> There is more than one aircraft with a thrust to weight ratio greater
>> than unity, not to mention a rocket or two.
>
>Yes, there certainly are but they are niche aircraft in the overall
>scheme of things and an extremely small percentage of aircraft.
>
>Maybe you'd like to include ornithopters in the discussion of engines
>for flying machines.

Why not?  The whole thread is already pretty silly.
>
>Rockets are rockets.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft

Oh, Ion engines aren't be proposed for rockets, too?  Never mind.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604231

In sci.physics krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 00:13:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>In sci.physics krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 22:05:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> 
>>>>In sci.physics mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/7/2016 11:13 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> OK, how about, "Aircraft engines,
>>>>> when properly fixtured,
>>>>> can result in objects disengaging contact with the earth?"
>>>>
>>>>How about the engine on fixed wing aircraft provides thrust to overcome
>>>>total drag to accelerate the aircraft to an airspeed sufficient to
>>>>provide enough lift from the wings to overcome the force of gravity?
>>>>
>>>>How about the engine of a helicopter provides power to spin rotating
>>>>wings to a speed sufficient to develop enough lift to overcome the
>>>>force of gravity? For the purpose of this discussion assume that the
>>>>angle of attack of the rotor blades has been set appropriately.
>>>>
>>> There is more than one aircraft with a thrust to weight ratio greater
>>> than unity, not to mention a rocket or two.
>>
>>Yes, there certainly are but they are niche aircraft in the overall
>>scheme of things and an extremely small percentage of aircraft.
>>
>>Maybe you'd like to include ornithopters in the discussion of engines
>>for flying machines.
> 
> Why not?  The whole thread is already pretty silly.

From start to end...

>>Rockets are rockets.
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft
> 
> Oh, Ion engines aren't be proposed for rockets, too?  Never mind.

Where is the word "rocket" in the subject of this thread?


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604293

In sci.space.policy jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> How about the engine on fixed wing aircraft provides thrust to
> overcome total drag to accelerate the aircraft to an airspeed
> sufficient to provide enough lift from the wings to overcome the
> force of gravity?

Where would you put the Harrier in that definition?  Doesn't it have
the ability (albeit rather lightly loaded) to take-off vertically on
thrust from the engine alone?

rick jones
-- 
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, rebirth...
                                     where do you want to be today?
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com  but NOT BOTH...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604301

In sci.physics Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote:
> In sci.space.policy jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> How about the engine on fixed wing aircraft provides thrust to
>> overcome total drag to accelerate the aircraft to an airspeed
>> sufficient to provide enough lift from the wings to overcome the
>> force of gravity?
> 
> Where would you put the Harrier in that definition?  Doesn't it have
> the ability (albeit rather lightly loaded) to take-off vertically on
> thrust from the engine alone?
> 
> rick jones

Yeah, it does, so now let's bring up all the other niche aircraft of
which there are very few starting with ornithopters.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604648

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>
>Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>

Of course they do.  It's that whole Lift/Drag thing.  Remove the
engines and airplanes don't go up.


-- 
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
 territory."
                                      --G. Behn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604690

On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>
>
> Of course they do.  It's that whole Lift/Drag thing.  Remove the
> engines and airplanes don't go up.

Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
airliners :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders

More seriously contrary to most people's belief, aircraft
engines aren't speed controls, they are climb/descend
controls. Steady-state speed is set by the attitude,
i.e. by the elevators.

Of course engines give more opportunities for varying
the attitude :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604692

Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>>
>>
>> Of course they do.  It's that whole Lift/Drag thing.  Remove the
>> engines and airplanes don't go up.
>
>Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
>airliners :)
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders
>

Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
with an engine.


-- 
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
 truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
                               -- Thomas Jefferson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604696

In article <0g2j2chkqnifba356q8ek0cvesu22mn07i@4ax.com>, 
fjmccall@gmail.com says...
> 
> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Of course they do.  It's that whole Lift/Drag thing.  Remove the
> >> engines and airplanes don't go up.
> >
> >Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
> >airliners :)
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders
> >
> 
> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
> with an engine.

True.  Whether it is a tow plane (like seems common in the US), a motor 
on a winch for a cable launch (common in Europe, or so I'm told), or 
even "self tow" (engine or motor and propeller on the glider) a glider 
would have a hard time getting off the ground without some sort of 
engine/motor.

And before anyone mentions that a glider can stay aloft pretty much "all 
day" by riding thermals, yes it can.  But, if you're spending all day 
searching for the best thermals, you're not spending any time going from 
point A to point B, so they're not terribly useful as transportation.

Jeff
-- 
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.  
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, 
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604698

On 14/11/16 11:02, Jeff Findley wrote:
> In article <0g2j2chkqnifba356q8ek0cvesu22mn07i@4ax.com>,
> fjmccall@gmail.com says...
>>
>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course they do.  It's that whole Lift/Drag thing.  Remove the
>>>> engines and airplanes don't go up.
>>>
>>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
>>> airliners :)
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders
>>>
>>
>> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
>> with an engine.
>
> True.  Whether it is a tow plane (like seems common in the US), a motor
> on a winch for a cable launch (common in Europe, or so I'm told), or
> even "self tow" (engine or motor and propeller on the glider) a glider
> would have a hard time getting off the ground without some sort of
> engine/motor.

False. See my other reply for videos of examples.

(But in Europe winches are more common than tugs, and
a typical release height is 2kft, but higher is possible.
A normal tug release height is 2kft, sometimes 3kft)


> And before anyone mentions that a glider can stay aloft pretty much "all
> day" by riding thermals, yes it can.  But, if you're spending all day
> searching for the best thermals, you're not spending any time going from
> point A to point B, so they're not terribly useful as transportation.

True, but they are a damn sight more fun :)

(Besides, ISTR sailing ships seem to have been
used for transportation, even though they were
sometimes becalmed :) )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604705

Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 14/11/16 11:02, Jeff Findley wrote:
>> In article <0g2j2chkqnifba356q8ek0cvesu22mn07i@4ax.com>,
>> fjmccall@gmail.com says...
>>>
>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course they do.  It's that whole Lift/Drag thing.  Remove the
>>>>> engines and airplanes don't go up.
>>>>
>>>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
>>>> airliners :)
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders
>>>>
>>>
>>> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
>>> with an engine.
>>
>> True.  Whether it is a tow plane (like seems common in the US), a motor
>> on a winch for a cable launch (common in Europe, or so I'm told), or
>> even "self tow" (engine or motor and propeller on the glider) a glider
>> would have a hard time getting off the ground without some sort of
>> engine/motor.
>
>False. See my other reply for videos of examples.
>
>(But in Europe winches are more common than tugs, and
>a typical release height is 2kft, but higher is possible.
>A normal tug release height is 2kft, sometimes 3kft)
>
>
>> And before anyone mentions that a glider can stay aloft pretty much "all
>> day" by riding thermals, yes it can.  But, if you're spending all day
>> searching for the best thermals, you're not spending any time going from
>> point A to point B, so they're not terribly useful as transportation.
>
>True, but they are a damn sight more fun :)
>
>(Besides, ISTR sailing ships seem to have been
>used for transportation, even though they were
>sometimes becalmed :) )
>

'Becalmed in a glider means you land.  Then you have to figure out how
to get it back up in the air again.  And you'd better have places to
land all along the way.


-- 
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
 territory."
                                      --G. Behn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604709

On 14/11/16 12:54, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 14/11/16 11:02, Jeff Findley wrote:
>>> In article <0g2j2chkqnifba356q8ek0cvesu22mn07i@4ax.com>,
>>> fjmccall@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course they do.  It's that whole Lift/Drag thing.  Remove the
>>>>>> engines and airplanes don't go up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
>>>>> airliners :)
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
>>>> with an engine.
>>>
>>> True.  Whether it is a tow plane (like seems common in the US), a motor
>>> on a winch for a cable launch (common in Europe, or so I'm told), or
>>> even "self tow" (engine or motor and propeller on the glider) a glider
>>> would have a hard time getting off the ground without some sort of
>>> engine/motor.
>>
>> False. See my other reply for videos of examples.
>>
>> (But in Europe winches are more common than tugs, and
>> a typical release height is 2kft, but higher is possible.
>> A normal tug release height is 2kft, sometimes 3kft)
>>
>>
>>> And before anyone mentions that a glider can stay aloft pretty much "all
>>> day" by riding thermals, yes it can.  But, if you're spending all day
>>> searching for the best thermals, you're not spending any time going from
>>> point A to point B, so they're not terribly useful as transportation.
>>
>> True, but they are a damn sight more fun :)
>>
>> (Besides, ISTR sailing ships seem to have been
>> used for transportation, even though they were
>> sometimes becalmed :) )
>>
>
> 'Becalmed in a glider means you land.  Then you have to figure out how
> to get it back up in the air again.  And you'd better have places to
> land all along the way.

Standard operating procedure: pick a field, pluck off the wings,
put glider in trailer, go home. Also many gliders have "get
out of trouble" engines, but they expect not to use them.

But the point is not whether gliders are practical means
of transport (they aren't), but whether you need engines
to go up. (You don't - unless you count the sun as an engine
:) )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604774

Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 14/11/16 12:54, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/11/16 11:02, Jeff Findley wrote:
>>>> In article <0g2j2chkqnifba356q8ek0cvesu22mn07i@4ax.com>,
>>>> fjmccall@gmail.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course they do.  It's that whole Lift/Drag thing.  Remove the
>>>>>>> engines and airplanes don't go up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
>>>>>> airliners :)
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
>>>>> with an engine.
>>>>
>>>> True.  Whether it is a tow plane (like seems common in the US), a motor
>>>> on a winch for a cable launch (common in Europe, or so I'm told), or
>>>> even "self tow" (engine or motor and propeller on the glider) a glider
>>>> would have a hard time getting off the ground without some sort of
>>>> engine/motor.
>>>
>>> False. See my other reply for videos of examples.
>>>
>>> (But in Europe winches are more common than tugs, and
>>> a typical release height is 2kft, but higher is possible.
>>> A normal tug release height is 2kft, sometimes 3kft)
>>>
>>>
>>>> And before anyone mentions that a glider can stay aloft pretty much "all
>>>> day" by riding thermals, yes it can.  But, if you're spending all day
>>>> searching for the best thermals, you're not spending any time going from
>>>> point A to point B, so they're not terribly useful as transportation.
>>>
>>> True, but they are a damn sight more fun :)
>>>
>>> (Besides, ISTR sailing ships seem to have been
>>> used for transportation, even though they were
>>> sometimes becalmed :) )
>>>
>>
>> 'Becalmed in a glider means you land.  Then you have to figure out how
>> to get it back up in the air again.  And you'd better have places to
>> land all along the way.
>>
>
>Standard operating procedure: pick a field, pluck off the wings,
>put glider in trailer, go home. Also many gliders have "get
>out of trouble" engines, but they expect not to use them.
>
>But the point is not whether gliders are practical means
>of transport (they aren't), but whether you need engines
>to go up. (You don't - unless you count the sun as an engine
>:) )
>

So the point is irrelevant, since gliders aren't airplanes and they
practically never get off the ground without an engine.


-- 
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
 territory."
                                      --G. Behn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604835

On 14/11/16 19:35, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 14/11/16 12:54, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/11/16 11:02, Jeff Findley wrote:
>>>>> In article <0g2j2chkqnifba356q8ek0cvesu22mn07i@4ax.com>,
>>>>> fjmccall@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course they do.  It's that whole Lift/Drag thing.  Remove the
>>>>>>>> engines and airplanes don't go up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
>>>>>>> airliners :)
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
>>>>>> with an engine.
>>>>>
>>>>> True.  Whether it is a tow plane (like seems common in the US), a motor
>>>>> on a winch for a cable launch (common in Europe, or so I'm told), or
>>>>> even "self tow" (engine or motor and propeller on the glider) a glider
>>>>> would have a hard time getting off the ground without some sort of
>>>>> engine/motor.
>>>>
>>>> False. See my other reply for videos of examples.
>>>>
>>>> (But in Europe winches are more common than tugs, and
>>>> a typical release height is 2kft, but higher is possible.
>>>> A normal tug release height is 2kft, sometimes 3kft)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And before anyone mentions that a glider can stay aloft pretty much "all
>>>>> day" by riding thermals, yes it can.  But, if you're spending all day
>>>>> searching for the best thermals, you're not spending any time going from
>>>>> point A to point B, so they're not terribly useful as transportation.
>>>>
>>>> True, but they are a damn sight more fun :)
>>>>
>>>> (Besides, ISTR sailing ships seem to have been
>>>> used for transportation, even though they were
>>>> sometimes becalmed :) )
>>>>
>>>
>>> 'Becalmed in a glider means you land.  Then you have to figure out how
>>> to get it back up in the air again.  And you'd better have places to
>>> land all along the way.
>>>
>>
>> Standard operating procedure: pick a field, pluck off the wings,
>> put glider in trailer, go home. Also many gliders have "get
>> out of trouble" engines, but they expect not to use them.
>>
>> But the point is not whether gliders are practical means
>> of transport (they aren't), but whether you need engines
>> to go up. (You don't - unless you count the sun as an engine
>> :) )
>>
>
> So the point is irrelevant, since gliders aren't airplanes

airplane noun
1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the upward
thrust exerted by the passing air on its fixed wings and
driven by propellers, jet propulsion, etc.
2. any similar heavier-than-air aircraft, as a
glider or helicopter.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airplane


> and they
> practically never get off the ground without an engine.

They go up without an engine, which contradicts
your original statement. I've gone up at 1000ft/min
until reaching cloudbase, pulling 2.5-3G continuously
while doing it. So did the other glider ~300ft away.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web